On 7/17/07, Timothy Hochberg <tim.hochberg@ieee.org> wrote:
> The time is one issue. Another is that ignoring NaNs is only correct if you
> are treating NaNs as missing values. If instead you are treating them as non
> numbers, the results of some bogus computation, then raising an error is a
> more appropriate response. If one was going to take the time to check for
> NaNs, one strategy that I would probably support would be to ignore the
> NaNs, but set the invalid flag. If the error state for invalid was set to
> ignore, then this would work as the missing value camp likes, otherwise it
> would raise an error or signal a warning.
That sounds great. Would a change like that have to wait until 1.1?